| Author |
Message |
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
Hello. I am relatively new to streamclip but so far it works great, and I really like it. The only thing is, sometimes some of the features are locked out (the function is greyed-out in the pulldown menu).
Specifically:
Convert to MPEG...
Convert to MPEG with MP2 Audio...
Convert to Headed MPEG...
Convert to TS
Demux
Everything else still works. It seems to only happen with certain files. I've searched through the user guide and googled but I still have no idea why it won't let me make an mpeg (sometimes). Any clue is great
Info for most recent file:
Duration: 0:43:31
Data Size: 328.74 MB
Bit Rate: 1.06 Mbps
Video Tracks: DivX 4.1.2, 640 x 480, 29.97 fps, 935 kbps
Audio Tracks: MPEG Layer-3 Audio stereo, 48 kHz, 121 kbps
avi container
And I am using an Intel Macbook 10.4.11
TIA!!
|
|
pixel zombie
Member
Joined: 27 May 2004
Location: United States
|
|
are you using the perian plug-in?
|
|
Levina
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
|
|
That's because these options are available only if the source file is MPEG-1 or MPEG-2.
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
pixel zombie: I am using the perian plug-in. I tried going to system preferences and removing it, but i get the same result. Can't convert
Levina: ... why would you only have the option to "convert to mpeg" if the file you're working with is already an mpeg???
|
|
jpschuck
Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Location: France
|
|
| kita wrote: |
| Levina: ... why would you only have the option to "convert to mpeg" if the file you're working with is already an mpeg??? |
The MPEG conversion settings allow you to switch file format between .mpeg, .vob and .ts. They also allow you to change the audio track from AC3 or PCM to MP2.
MPEG Streamclip is an editing tool, but it cannot encode a video track to MPEG-1 or MPEG-2. You'll need to use Toast or ffmpegX to do that.
_________________
Jean-Philippe Schuck
Rejoignez une ligue de Bloodbowl sur Strasbourg
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
yeah, i ran a bunch of files into streamclip and it looks like you're right. i assumed since streamclip can encode other formats (mov, avi, mp4, etc) that it could encode mpeg as well, especially being called "mpeg" streamclip. The function's name "convert TO mpeg" is misleading too. And like I said before, the user guide doesn't say anything useful about it.
Thanks for the help
|
|
Levina
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
|
|
In the user guide, find the part that is titled "CONVERTING THE STREAM"; it may clear up a thing or two.
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
hmm, what do you know. I was using 'find' to look for instructions on the commands i listed, so i must've jumped to the command descriptions and skipped over that part every time. But I still say "convert mpeg" would have been better than "convert to mpeg"
|
|
usually_quiet
Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Location: United States
|
|
VRO, VOB, and .mpg (or mpeg) files are all different types of containers for multiplexed MPEG-2 video (or sometimes MPEG-1). .ts files are transport streams for MPEG-2 video. MPEG Streamclip is converting to mpeg, but the container is being converted, rather than its video component. The confusion arises because the container and the video part of its contents are often referred to by the same name. This causes difficulty for almost everyone, but the authors of this software aren't to blame for that.
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
Perhaps the authors could have slightly tweaked the labels on the program they worked so hard on, so that it didn't "cause difficulty for almost everyone"
|
|
Levina
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
|
|
Usually_quiet's observation that 'this causes difficulty for almost everyone' did not refer to MPEGStreamclip.
|
|
usually_quiet
Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| Levina wrote: |
| Usually_quiet's observation that 'this causes difficulty for almost everyone' did not refer to MPEGStreamclip. |
Exactly. I was referring to a problem caused by people using the same name for a container as they use for its contents.
| kita wrote: |
| Perhaps the authors could have slightly tweaked the labels on the program they worked so hard on, so that it didn't "cause difficulty for almost everyone" |
Surely you don't expect the user interface for every program to eliminate the need to read and understand its documentation before using it. If you do, you are going to be disappointed on a regular basis.
If one takes time to read the "Features" section at http://www.squared5.com/svideo/mpeg-streamclip-mac.html or the user documentation for MPEG Streamclip, there is no doubt that it needs some form of MPEG-2 or MPEG-1 video input to produce any of the kinds of MPEG-2 or MPEG-1 video output it's capable of. Nowhere does it imply that one can use MPEG Streamclip to get MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 video output from one of the other kinds of video input it accepts.
|
|
tomlee59
Member
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Location: Palo Alto, California USA
|
|
You mean, the software isn't telepathic? Dang. Gotta write to the authors. 
The abbreviation "RTFM" was apparently coined for a reason. 
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
| usually_quiet wrote: |
| The confusion arises because the container and the video part of its contents are often referred to by the same name. This causes difficulty for almost everyone, but the authors of this software aren't to blame for that. |
If it is so commonly known, as it is known to usually_quiet, that "almost everyone" has difficulty from confusing mpeg containers for mpeg video formats simply because they have the same name (how on Earth could they make that mistake?) then maybe the authors could have anticipated that, and made the slightest extra effort to make it more clear. Which is what I was referring to.
The documentation may not imply that MPEGStreamclip can encode other formats to mpeg. But, as I already said, since the software can encode between and to several other formats, it's not that big of a leap to think that it can encode to mpeg as well. Its function makes the implication where the documentation may not.
And yes, I expect programs to eliminate the need to even HAVE a user manual. Manuals should be a backup. And I've rarely been disappointed. If a program is very reading-intensive, as I believe streamclip is not, I move on. It's something I call "user friendly". If a program is so counter-intuitive you have to grab the book every five seconds, that's a design flaw, or rather failure.
As for tomlee and your "RTFM", you're the reason that they have instructions printed on boxes of toothpicks, and why grenade instructions include "throw towards the enemy". Maybe if programs were as obvious, people wouldn't have to search through 50 page instruction docs all the time to figure out what the author was thinking, because I'm not telepathic either.
And by the way, this was ONE TINY aspect where I had a half-serious, just-mentioning, TINY complaint of an otherwise great program. What the hell is your guys' problem?? Some people need to take out the something that they have stuck up in somewhere.
|
|
tomlee59
Member
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Location: Palo Alto, California USA
|
|
The difficulty with email is that a humorous comment can be misconstrued as a sarcastic barb from a martinet. Even with an emoticon, context and body language are absent. So, kita, sorry for your having taken offense, but there was none intended. I agree that the best-written software should need minimal documentation. That said, I do occasionally RTFM pretty much as soon as I encounter a puzzling problem. But only occasionally.
|
|
usually_quiet
Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| kita wrote: |
| usually_quiet wrote: |
| The confusion arises because the container and the video part of its contents are often referred to by the same name. This causes difficulty for almost everyone, but the authors of this software aren't to blame for that. |
If it is so commonly known, as it is known to usually_quiet, that "almost everyone" has difficulty from confusing mpeg containers for mpeg video formats simply because they have the same name (how on Earth could they make that mistake?) then maybe the authors could have anticipated that, and made the slightest extra effort to make it more clear. Which is what I was referring to.
The documentation may not imply that MPEGStreamclip can encode other formats to mpeg. But, as I already said, since the software can encode between and to several other formats, it's not that big of a leap to think that it can encode to mpeg as well. Its function makes the implication where the documentation may not.
And yes, I expect programs to eliminate the need to even HAVE a user manual. Manuals should be a backup. And I've rarely been disappointed. If a program is very reading-intensive, as I believe streamclip is not, I move on. It's something I call "user friendly". If a program is so counter-intuitive you have to grab the book every five seconds, that's a design flaw, or rather failure.
As for tomlee and your "RTFM", you're the reason that they have instructions printed on boxes of toothpicks, and why grenade instructions include "throw towards the enemy". Maybe if programs were as obvious, people wouldn't have to search through 50 page instruction docs all the time to figure out what the author was thinking, because I'm not telepathic either.
And by the way, this was ONE TINY aspect where I had a half-serious, just-mentioning, TINY complaint of an otherwise great program. What the hell is your guys' problem?? Some people need to take out the something that they have stuck up in somewhere. |
It's unfortunate that a polite disagreement I have with you over this particular group of menu selections has now become something else. If what I said offends you so much that you have to engage in personal insults, such as the one in your last sentence, you had better not spend much time posting in the forums section. People are going to argue with you now and then. That's half the fun of being here.
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
Well, it started to seem like you were all ganging up on me. And it was very surprising at how... passionately you and the others responded to my casual mentioning of a very small detail in the program. Your choice of words and tone also made it seem like you thought your conclusions were obvious, and mine therefore ludicrous, to the point where that last guy felt free to jump in with his two cents. And my comments were mostly directed at him anyway.
(mostly) :p
And so you know my intent, I am capable of much more abrasive language than what was used, as far as the last couple of sentences. I thought it was toned down pretty well, and an on-par response to some of life's more "charming" acronyms
|
|
usually_quiet
Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| kita wrote: |
Well, it started to seem like you were all ganging up on me. And it was very surprising at how... passionately you and the others responded to my casual mentioning of a very small detail in the program. Your choice of words and tone also made it seem like you thought your conclusions were obvious, and mine therefore ludicrous, to the point where that last guy felt free to jump in with his two cents. And my comments were mostly directed at him anyway.
(mostly) :p
And so you know my intent, I am capable of much more abrasive language than what was used, as far as the last couple of sentences. I thought it was toned down pretty well, and an on-par response to some of life's more "charming" acronyms |
The forum rules prohibit arguments on important topics, so all we can argue about are the little things. Happens all the time too.
We are ALL capable of using much harsher language. Trust me, I could use some right now.
[edit] Finally, I have no more control over what other participants will choose to write than you do. In any case, one can't predict what kinds of opinions are going to be expressed in a thread. The next poster taking a side in that discussion could just as easily have agreed with you.
|
|
kita
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Location: US
|
|
| usually_quiet wrote: |
| We are ALL capable of using much harsher language. Trust me, I could use some right now. |
... Yes, but I'm sure you were still thinking it, right?
My point was that I wasn't trying to attack anyone all that severely.
| usually_quiet wrote: |
| Finally, I have no more control over what other participants will choose to write than you do. In any case, one can't predict what kinds of opinions are going to be expressed in a thread. The next poster taking a side in that discussion could just as easily have agreed with you. |
It's not about disagreement. Your choice of words is very condescending in tone, and with a veiled sense of arrogance. After first putting up with that annoyance then tomlee's little dig, maybe well-intended but poorly timed, I guess I got offended. I responded in kind, and was rewarded with more lectures. Not to mention all this occurring AFTER I was given all the answers and the topic at hand was closed.
Maybe next time you can not be so immediately aggressive, or if not, try making an effort to live up to your name 
|
|
|
|
